Thursday, April 24, 2014

The Pope's alleged phone call

People have been asking me about what the Pope has been allegedly saying to that divorced and civilly remarried Argentinian woman.

Jesus said, "Every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; and every one that marries one put away from a husband commits adultery". Now, I cannot imagine anyone who loves Christ and his teaching, saying to this poor woman, 'Jesus, says one thing but I teach something that is opposite to Jesus, follow me because I am greater than Jesus Christ'.

Now, simply, that would be anti-Christ and a diabolic blasphemy, so the poor woman is either mistaken or lying.

Perhaps someone in the Vatican needs clarify things and our beloved Holy Father needs to stop making these silly telephone calls that lead to confusion, and seriously damage people's faith. Vatileaks were bad enough but these phone calls are a thousand times more dangerous.

54 comments:

Father, did you ever consider that our "beloved" pope is so STRANGE as a pope and also his conclave has been even more stranger? I just wonder how much time has to pass and how many these STRANGE things has to be said, before we start to ask more profound questions about our "beloved " pope...

100% right Fr. Ray. Personally, didn't buy into the story, and only saw it late last night. But I suspected "hoax" right off, because clearly NO pope would teach a big error like that. I suspect either a) she lied or b) someone was playing a trick on her she bought into and claimed to be the pope.

The poor Vatican official was likely blindsided and had no time to check with the pope to see if he HAD called the woman. With ANY luck, this SHOULD be a "wake up call" for him to stop pulling these "stunts" no matter how attractive they seem. I wish he'd stop picking up "hitchhikers" on the pope mobile too, because with his luck he'd pick up a nutter who might try and harm him. High time he learn that his impetuousness can cause a LOT more harm than good. 100-1 Pope Benedict did a palm face plant when he heard the story. Some people have to learn the hard way, and unfortunately it seems Pope Francis is one of them.

Tereze,I don't know what you mean by 'strange'. The real question is, 'Is the Pope a Catholic?' The only possible answer is in the affirmative, therefore any 'strangeness' is impossible, otherwise..., otherwise.... well, that is impossible to imagine, and millions of Catholics have been living a lie and our faith is built on sand.

Here's the working English translation from the Holy See Press Office:

Statement from the Director of the Holy See Press Office

Several telephone calls have taken place in the context of Pope Francis’ personal pastoral relationships.

Since they do not in any way form part of the Pope's public activities, no information or comments are to be expected from the Holy See Press Office.

That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.

Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences.

I have to disagree. It is quite possible for an non Catholic to hold any ecclesiastical office including that of the Holy See. They can't exercise valid spiritual authority but they can hold the office. Why I can think of bishops who prove this to be true.

No one in a state of mortal sin may receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, including those engaging in sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married. It is possible for a pope to be excommunicate - if so, he is not a valid pope.

There is, of course, another logical possibility and I think it is nothing short of cowardice to refuse to face up to it. Naturally, I don't accuse you of that, Father. You have so very neatly and precisely drawn the negative space around the elephant in the room that it is impossible to miss your message here.

But one of the ways the Church and the world has come to this near-hopeless pass has been all the good, decent people saying, "Oh, that couldn't possibly really be happening. There must be some other, more reasonable explanation."

We accomplish nothing by refusing to face up to what is before our eyes.

Irrespective of the actual facts in this case, the damage has been done.

One only needs to look at this headline from the Daily Telegraph:

"Pope Francis 'tells sinner she should be allowed Communion'In apparent break from Catholic teaching, Pope is said to have phoned remarried Argentine Jacqui Lisbona to say 'nothing wrong' in her taking Holy Communion".

There has been comment from the Vatican, reported in the Catholic Herald. It does lend credence to the phone call actually being the Pope's, though, and not a hoax; but if Petrus is correct then those facts would be helpful if more widely known.

Since the recipients of this call have 'gone public', what on earth is there to prevent the Vatican actually reporting what was said by the Pope? This would clear the matter up once and for all and stop all the headlines about changes in Church teaching. The only good reason that I can think of is that his remarks were accurately reported.

It is just as well that you were so clear, father. He is testing the water. The tactics of a politician are taking place, in light of the upcoming Synod on the family this October.

He is media savvy, there's no doubt about it. H knew very well that what he told that poor lady would go viral. He's trying to see how far he can go, how much he can get away with without being seen as something other.

Just what sort of person would manipulate the naive by portraying evil as good?

According to this mornings Telegraph the Pope rebuked the local priest who had advised the woman not to receive communion. "Some priests are more papal than the Pope, he is alleged to have said"

Someone should tell the holy Father that he is standing into danger by having these off the cuff telephone calls (which are presumably not "recorded for training purposes"). With a telephone call such as this, the only two people who know what was said are the Pope and his interlocutor. At the end of the call neither party I bet will have total recall what was said. And if one of the parties wants to cause mischief, or even in good faith misinterpret, who is anyone to judge who is right?

I am a very fed up Catholic at present. Maybe we hire an aeroplane to circle round St Peter's square in the manner of disgruntled Manchester United supporters.

While it's true that the lady in question is not herself a divorcee, the most recent reports indicate that she is civilly married to a man who had himself previously entered into a Catholic marriage.

This means there are, on the face of it, two impediments to full communion with the Church: the husband's sacramental marriage and the subsequent civil ceremony.

Now, if her husband did not receive a Decree of Nullity for his first marriage, he is still married to his first wife, the second marriage is invalid, and they should refrain from presenting themselves for Communion until the situation is resolved.

If he did receive a Decree of Nullity, but the new marriage has not been blessed by the Church, then the current marriage is (at least) irregular, and they should refrain from presenting themselves for Communion until the situation is resolved.

If both these situations have been resolved, then perhaps her parish priest was mistaken, but soliciting a phone call from the Pope is like using an ICBM to swat a mosquito, as we now see.

IF "Fr" Bergoglio told this woman who is not validly married to go ahead and blaspheme the Eucharist and to sneak and go to another parish to do it, then he is guilty of the sin he tells another to commit.

Lets hope this did not happen! And that the Vatican restates the truth about marriage which is under serious attack everywhere and now we have a wishy-washy Vatican adding to the confusion. Is nothing sacred anymore?

I'm looking forward to the upcoming October "Extraordinary Synod on the Family" with great trepidation.

Perhaps we should all pray for it to be a success and ask for the Holy Spirit to really lead the Bishops through the Synod, especially in this time when marriage has been attacked and the true nature of "family" questioned and discarded.

Perhaps we should pray our Rosaries over this. I recall Sr Lucia saying that all problems in the family can be resolved through praying the Rosary:

Sister Lucia:"The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Holy Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."

(Instead of German Bishops advocating for giving divorced and remarried people Holy Communion, why don't they encourage them, Catholics in general, to say the Rosary, especially families. People can offer so many intentions up on the Beads.)

If the situation has been reported accurately, then not the least distasteful aspect is the attempted undermining of the priest's orthodox stance on Marriage and the Eucharist. I really hope the priest will stick to his guns, and that his bishop will support him. (Some hope! But if they did hold fast, in a dignified way, that would be a lio worth having.)

In fairness to Pope Francis, who I presume may not disclose one bit of the conversation he had had with this Argentinian woman for fear of violating a spiritual confidence, His Holiness may have informed this woman (in so many words)that on 14 September 1994 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the CDF issued a letter to all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried members of the Faithful within which letter Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

"The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only "to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal."

So, under the aforementioned conditions the faithful may receive Holy Communion.

It does not preclude those who form such intention from subsequently receiving sacramental absolution should their resolve weaken and they sin again and again only to renew their resolve to live a life of marital continence.

This woman may have heard only that she may receive the Eucharist and that it must be in another parish.

There seems to be some resonance with Cardinal Ratzinger's earlier instruction in the little we know of the supposed content of the exchange between Pope Francis and this woman. I'm just spit-balling here (as those colourful Americans are wont to say).

Yea, you're right. 'Completely silly.' Particularly silly when it involves a matter of spiritual death this woman could likely have spun into without reaffirming her faith in Holy Communion. This lady is no more sinful than any other Catholic approaching Holy Communion. The Holy Father, above anything, understands this well.

Father, I hate to correct a venerable priest, but I believe you are mistaken in your comment:

"Tereze,I don't know what you mean by 'strange'. The real question is, 'Is the Pope a Catholic?' The only possible answer is in the affirmative, therefore any 'strangeness' is impossible, otherwise..., otherwise.... well, that is impossible to imagine, and millions of Catholics have been living a lie and our faith is built on sand."

No, it certainly would not mean that. Not at all. This kind of thinking is what got us into this mess. The pope is not the Faith. The pope does not give us the Faith. If the pope loses the Faith, I don't lose mine. If the pope is a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic or any of those horrible things, I don't have to be those things too.

The Faith comes from God not Rome. The papacy is a key unit of the Church, so having such a bad one would be a terrible thing, but absolutely no reason whatever for anyone to lose their Faith.

I personally think we are in a unique situation. I have asked many smarty-smart people, who know lots of history and theology, when there has been a comparable disastrous period in the Church, and each one of them has said something like, "Well, the Arian crisis comes close, but this is probably worse." And it is clear that the current worries about Francis are not isolated, unique or distinct from the general catastrophe that has befallen us.

Francis, if I may say something so dreadful, is a symptom - or perhaps the culmination - of the overall disaster that has become the ruling principle of the world since 1965. But again, this has no effect on the Faith. The Faith is simply the Truth. The Real. The realness of the Real does not change or fade because lots and lots of people want to deny it. Two and two still equal four. Marriage is still what it is. The Holy Eucharist is still the Holy Eucharist.

If the Papacy has been seized by bad men it does not mean that the things we believe are "built on sand". It means only that the papacy has been seized by bad men. Bad men will do what bad men do, and we can do nothing but maintain and continue to proclaim what we know is true throughout their reign.

Facing up to the possibility that something very bad is going on does not necessitate a loss of the Faith. Fearing that the sky will fall if there is a bad pope, fearing it so much that one tries to retreat into denial of what we see plainly before us, will do nothing to help anyone.

Facing up to what is really happening is the only way to maintain the Faith. Retreating and saying, "oh, that couldn't possibly happen and if it did then the Real is no longer the Real." is going to allow the disaster to spread still further.

Only the Real counts. And if the pope and all the cardinals and bishops of the world try to say that something other than the Word of Christ is true, then we reject that as a wicked lie. We know what is true because we have the Faith.

As laypeople (and humble parish priests) our duty is clearly before us. We don't have the power to stop bad men from doing bad things. But we have the power to continue to maintain the Faith, what we know. And to pray for a just solution to the terrible troubles of our times.

Hilary,Where does it leave Christ promise to be with his Church forever, where does it leave our interpretation of 'Tu es Petrus ...'? Where does it leave the unity of the Church? If the Pope is what you suggest we have indeed built on sand.

Dear Father Ray,I realize many of us are at best chagrined about Pope Francis' one-to-one encounters about which we only ever have anecdotal accounts. And while I wish the Holy Father would not expose himself to such situations where only one side reports what was reputedly said, I imagine that Jesus took such risks too when He (without His disciples present) engaged the Samaritan woman in conversation at the well and questioned her about her marital situation, after which she ran off excitedly into the town recounting (as best she recalled) the Words and her impression of Jesus. John 4: 27 - 29.I believe, for charity's sake, it is worth considering in respect of Pope Francis' phone call.

I don't see it at all. St Robert Bellarmine and St Francis De Sales among others foresaw the possibility we see before us. Hilary's right. If tomorrow Francis pens this opinion in magisterial ink, it doesn't mean that Christ has abandoned the Church. It merely means - I'll go ahead and say it - contingent on the judgement of a majority of Cardinals, that "Father Bergoglio" is no longer pope.

Dear Father, throughout history, from time to time, Popes have said and done some perfectly horrible things: that does not threaten our faith.

Christ's promise was simply that the Pope will not bind our consciences to unambiguous error concerning faith and morals. In order to bind our consciences, the Pope would have to say what had always and everywhere been taught--which would pose no problems--or make an ex-cathedra pronouncement--which he will not.

After the fall, life is not what we would hope. The faith is harder than we would hope. Catholicism is a balance: e.g., neither bind obedience at every second--still less blind adulation--but never private judgement in the Protestant understanding either.

The Church is not built upon sand, but rather upon Christ. Bad Popes do indeed damage unity! They always have--sometimes horribly!

But, because the Church is Divinely guided, it always self-corrects: but not in our time, but in His. And it never binds the consciences of the faithful to unambiguous heresy. These are not small reassurances!

Did Christ tie his promise to another one that the Petrine ministry would always perdure without stain? That no pope would ever be elected who was morally or intellectually corrupt? Or did the Lord just say that He would never abandon the Church?

I say it again: we don't get the Faith from the pope. And the pope is as obliged to maintain and defend the Faith as every other Catholic.

Juridically speaking, it is certainly possible. We have had both interregnums and antipopes - 30 of the latter, according to the Catholic encyclopedia.

The question is how it affects the man who is the visible head of the office. Since only the Church (most specifically in the person of the pope, who is her supreme legislator) has the authority to say that a pope is a heretic, and thus, in fact, an antipope, a pope would have to in a fit of conscience accuse himself, or a successor of his would have to accuse him posthumously.

A good treatise on this (and why the sedevacantists are wrong for arrogating to themselves the authority to make such judgments, but not wrong in recognizing that such a situation could exist) can be found here: http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/d9316b1dfdf813d95b197bee8640f489-219.html

I would suggest that we have a unique situation on our hands. We have two popes currently living.Pope Benedict has not retaken the title of "Cardinal Ratzinger" as those who abdicated before him did, he has not returned to his diocese or even stopped wearing his papal garb. If one were to hypothesize (and that's all this is), one could imagine such a (far-fetched, but possible) scenario:

At the synod in October, Pope Francis fulfills our worst fears and supports this desecration of the Eucharist.

Those who believe that the papacy is the faith say, "If the pope wishes to change discipline, he can change it" and follow him.

But what if Pope Emeritus Benedict were to step forward, break his silence, and say that it was wrong? What if he were (to go deeper into this fantasy) admit that his abdication was coerced (thus making Francis's election canonically invalid) because he was pressured to do some thing he could not in good conscience do and feared the very sort of schism that was now on his doorstep, and he was trying to forestall it?

Could it be possible that the Church could split into two camps, one with an anti-pope as head, and one with a real one?

I don't see any legal reason that it could not.

I'm not aiming for plausibility here, I'm shooting for a scenario in which what might happen with this synod could make sense and yet not in any way mitigate the truth of the True Faith.

"From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes, so will she lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, she will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision."

Hilary's comment concerns me. Good Catholics are being tempted by the Devil to believe that we can be faithful to God while ignoring the fact that the pope is Christ's vicar on earth. Any pope can err in his own life but cannot err when, acting in the capacity of Peter, he teaches Faith and morals - the Holy Spirit would not allow it! So what are we worried about. It's almost Divine Mercy Sunday. What are we going to pray: Jesus I trust in You but not Your Vicar when he speaks in Your Name? What a slap in the face, and only a week after Good Friday too. The phone call may well be a mistake on our Holy Father's part. He is human after all. However, we have nothing to fear from his teachings. He won't - he can't - teach error. So let's stop worrying and pray for him and for the Church that we will not be tempted to let our irritation with the pope's human mistakes cause us to forget that he will nevertheless not teach us error.

"but how terrible to return to the Middle Ages with Popes resigning and others being accused of heresy, what next a new Avignon?"

But Fr., isn't it an axiom that those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat its mistakes? And what greater proof could there be of ignorance of history other than the widespread abandonment of holy Tradition?

I agree with Hilary that it is possible for a pope to be a heretic without committing the Church to a binding definition of doctrine which is heretical. We have the examples of Liberius, Honorius and John XXII from our history which show this is the case. Pope Paul IV made canonical provision for the automatic deposition of an heretical Pope, so he obviously believed that the Pope's personal faith could fail.

We do have Christ's assurance that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church, however, and surely that is the object of our faith - not the person of the Pope.

"Any pope can err in his own life but cannot err when, acting in the capacity of Peter, he teaches Faith and morals - the Holy Spirit would not allow it!"

Ann Frost,The Pope is only protected from error by the Holy Spirit when he invokes Papal Infallibility. Vatican I defined the five conditions for Papal Infallibility to be when 1.the Pope 2. makes an ex cathedra statement 3. he defines 4. a doctrine concerning faith or morals5. that must be held by the whole Church.This has only been used twice, and the last time it was used, was by Pope Pius XII. Outside of Papal Infallibility, the Pope is capable of erring in faith and morals. The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, be he can reject this guidance and err because he is a man with free will.

It seems to me - shadowy, big-eared Christian though I might be - that this pontificate has been sending up trial balloon after trial balloon for over a year now. Sometimes reeling it back if the winds of Faith among the [insert papal insult here] prove still to be a little too strong, but ultimately moving ahead on its horizontally-determined anti-christian interreligious and ultimately athiestic utopimaniacal way.-but that's just my batty radar at work.

"Hilary,Where does it leave Christ promise to be with his Church forever, where does it leave our interpretation of 'Tu es Petrus ...'? Where does it leave the unity of the Church? If the Pope is what you suggest we have indeed built on sand."

I can't agree Father. I think the Church will always have it's Pope. If, hypothetically, the Church would split as Steve at 3:25 pm suggests it simply means, that in this scenario, the True Catholics would be following Benedict XVI who would be espousing the True Faith. Those following new magisterial initiatives under Bergoglio would simply be following their predecessors as per the English and German Reformations with much loss of souls. I'm not even sure it would be a schism...

Even if Benedict XVI died, and Francis went ahead with controversial reforms, I think "Tu es Petrus.." would prevail and he would be booted out and a new Pope elected.

But then I think it's all a set up. For fifty years Catholics have been left uncatechised with priests failing to teach sexual morals from the pulpit that is now resulting in scenarios where Sr Jane Laurel and Fr Rocky are being lynched by Catholics in Catholic schools where they've given talks. Catholics have been allowed to live their sex lives as "how they like it" for years, the culmination being the scandalous baptisms of children of a transgender (wo)man and her/his husband and two kissing lesbians in a Cathedral all in "Fr" Bergoglio's ex-diocese. It seems that Catholics have been primed for the sacrilege of adulterers being given Communion and who knows "what's down the road". I would assume that in pre-Vatican times, if a Pope started making such endless erroneous statements as this current Pontiff, Catholics would have stormed St Peters Square by now and shouted "Antipope" months ago.

Interesting, as Steve says, that Benedict never went back to being a Cardinal.

Fr Ray said:

"...what next a new Avignon?"

Well, both Popes don't even live in the Vatican...

Think about it, tomorrow, two Popes will be canonised in the presence of two Popes. B.i.z.a.r.r.o...

LWC - yes, it is spiritual death and moral death to eat damnation upon oneself, by continuing to obstinately (never mind, manifestly) in mortal sin and to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. To permit someone who is behaving as this woman is, to receive Our Lord, is to commit sacrilege, and kill her soul. Lord, have mercy.

I think Luke 12:45-48 is worth a careful read and reflection, treating as it does with a Master's wanton slaves, lazy slaves, and (invincibly) ignorant slaves:

"But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."

"with priests failing to teach sexual morals from the pulpit that is now resulting in scenarios where Sr Jane Laurel and Fr Rocky are being lynched by Catholics in Catholic schools where they've given talks"SISTERJANE

You can run onFor a long timeRun on for aLong timeRun on for a long timeSooner or laterGod’ll cut‘em downSooner or laterGod’ll cut ‘em down

These rotten wickedHeinous menFound foul and guiltyAgain and againAll are depravedLike nuns on the busApprove their boilsThen suck their pus

Sent a PrelateDressed in whiteTo warn that the darkWill be brought to the lightHis cassocked clergyTeach the Faith truthfullyBut scourged like theMan from Galilee

Defilement diseasedSepticityCarbuncled-consentedCatholicityThe man in the domeMakes a mess to delayOptimistic his fruits of decay We’ll obey

And now a true brideOf Christ, Sister JaneSpat upon by superiorsProfane

Spat upon by the vulgarOf CharlotteMan, woman, childEach one is a harlot

You can run onFor a long timeRun on for aLong timeRun on for a long timeSooner or laterGod’ll cutYou downSooner or laterGod’ll cut You down!

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna

Pray for Francis our Pope, and for the Church of God

My Parish's Website

Comments

Comments may or may not be published. The choice is made on the spur of the moment and is purely arbitary. I do not necessarily agree with all comments published but they are published in the interest of debate. If you object go here.